Are truth claims racist?
Is saying the Bible is the preeminent source of wisdom and revelation from God a supremacist, colonialist, and racist claim?1
Recently I was reading a forthcoming book by a progressive Christian author, who made this curious claim:
“I’m focusing on the Bible not to show its superiority over other indigenous wisdom (which in itself would be a supremacist, colonial approach), but rather to situate it in the genre of indigenous wisdom, the tribal wisdom of the Hebrew people.”2
There’s a LOT happening in this statement.
It seems pretty clear to me that the author is suggesting that asserting the Bible’s preeminence over other wisdom texts would be a supremacist, colonialist, and ultimately racist approach.
Before I begin, I want to state up front that I 100% agree that the Bible and Christianity has been used, especially in America, to justify horrific examples of dehumanization, slavery, cultural genocide, and mass murder of Native American people, African persons brought over for slavery, immigrants, African-Americans during the civil-rights era, and so on. More, much of the modern Christian missionary movement has indeed been wrapped in a cultural hegemony, suggesting that other populations need not simply accept Jesus, but rather western civilization, to be Christian.
That being said, I do think Christianity is not the same as western civilization robing itself in a Christian facade to justify its ethnocentrism and culturally imperialistic endeavors. But, let me first acknowledge that perhaps this is simply what this author is suggesting in the above quote, and that I myself am misreading and misinterpreting these words. I may be. But, working from the assumption that I am indeed understanding these words correctly, I think this is a very problematic statement, and leads me to some questions.
“When did you stop beating your dog?”
I remember hearing some version of that statement as a “gotcha” joke when I was in junior high. It was something like, “when did you stop peeing your pants in school?” Of course, those more astute than I was at 12 years old could recognize the “begging the question” fallacy here, which occurs when an argument's premise assumes the truth of the conclusion. In short, this author’s statement presumes that holding truth claims is prejudiced. To word it in a similar statement, the author is essentially asking, “when did you realize that believing the Bible has more wisdom than other wisdom texts was racist?” It’s a logical fallacy.
A reverse Marcionism?
Remember Marcion? The early Christian figure that suggested the God of the Old Testament and the God of the New Testament were two different beings. He wanted to eliminate any of those Hebrew scriptures, to the point that he thought Paul’s writings were the only legitimate sources of truth about God. Well, I’d assert this author engages in a sort of reverse Marcionism. Why do I say that? Well, first, Paul wrote to a lot of communities to which he was not apart, often suggesting they were wrong and misguided. Again and again, Paul writes from an outsider perspective to tell these communities what they should be doing. Yes, Paul was from Tarsus in Asia Minor, but he apparently had no problem speaking as an authoritative source to people in Jerusalem (Acts 15), Rome (Romans), and more. Was Paul a colonialist?3 Do we need to remove the entire corpus of Paul from the Bible as it is non-indigenous wisdom?4
What about trump cards?
In card games, a trump is a playing card which is elevated above its usual rank. The above author’s statement “which in itself would be a supremacist, colonial approach” is a sort of “trump” card. It essentially shuts down further conversation. These phrases are in some ways, trump cards which outmaneuver, outdo, and overtake any other statements. They essentially shut down further conversation, because to question the premise (per my above paragraph) is to inherently suggest, “yes, I did beat my dog at one point”). Is it even possible, once those words have been suggested, to counter? Especially as someone non-indigenous like myself?5
Is this statement itself a truth claim?
I am working from the assumption that truth claims are indeed possible, which also makes me wonder if this statement itself a truth claim, in that it is elevating its own wisdom above those who might disagree or hold otherwise. The statement “which in itself would be a supremacist, colonialist approach” seems to me to be a clear, concise assertion. What about indigenous persons who do hold the Bible to be preeminent over other sources of wisdom? Is not this author (as a non-indigenous person themselves) doing the very same thing they critique in the statement?
Is it possible to disagree with someone and it not be rooted in bias?
Finally, I have to wonder, and this is a serious question, is it possible to disagree with someone and it not be rooted in bias? I think all humans are biased to some degree, and as I’ve been taught at least, our biases are often unrecognized fully. More, bias mixed with power brews a noxious batch of racism. Even still, for me to succumb to such a conclusion undercuts my entire argument. And, I think the Christian tradition is rooted in the idea that one can know the truth—and that truth can set one free (John 8:32). Hence, I would argue that it is possible to disagree with someone and it not be rooted in bias.
What if progressive pluralism is doing the very thing it aims to reject?
In his book Holy Hell, Derek Ryan Kubilus enters an engaging conversation about Christianity and pluralism. And though I disagree with his broader conclusions, I do think he makes some strong points. He writes, “when pluralism becomes a religion all its own, when it is promoted not as a cultural tool but as an overarching ideology, an ultimate truth above all truths, it can lead to cultural arrogance and erasure.”6 Is this not what is happening here? Has not this unnamed author engaged in an “overarching ideology” which robs Christianity of its truth claims and leads to an “erasure” of its character?
More, Kubilus goes on to say he would never suggest “all religions are the same or that the religion one chooses doesn’t matter” because he could “hardly imagine a less progressive thing to say.”7 And, in what sounds very Barthian to me, he adds, “Is the spiritual tradition by which I came to… flawed? Absolutely. We have blind spots that we don’t even know that we have. Yet, it is not the tradition that saves; it is the Christ who inspired the tradition.”8 And, where do we learn about and encounter that Christ? In the words of the Bible. Pluralism inadvertently erases a lot of what makes this religion beautiful in the first place.9
How about Humility instead?
In the end, I may be wrong, not simply about this post, but about Christianity and the Bible. Kubilus admits the same about Christianity.10 In light of such a reality, what we need is not a watered-down, pluralistic, nothing-really-matters-truth-is-relative viewpoint, but a theological humility that can admit, “I feel very strongly and passionately about said truth claim, but I may be wrong.” In the end, I understand what this original quote’s author is trying to do, and I really think I understand why they said such. But, it is both logically flawed and religiously harmful (as Kubilus suggests).
Instead, what if Christians lived and acted out of humility and love; being passionate yet patient, distinct yet diffident, moored yet modest? Might living this way, living with confidence and conviction in our Christianity, but also modeling a meekness and modestly that leaves room for doubt, uncertainty, and correction make the ultimate difference? What if, rather than acting like truth doesn’t matter, we instead acted like truth is not the ultimate good—the ultimate good is love and humility?11
I am purposely avoiding “Word of God” language here to stay out of the “inerrancy” debate, which would be a distraction from this discussion. In this post, I’m not questioning whether or not the Bible is completely and fully the “Word of God’ or inerrant, but whether suggesting it is the most “inerrant” or contains the most revelation of God compared to other sacred texts is a claim rooted in prejudice.
I’m not citing the work because the book has not yet been released and the advanced ready copy I’ve been given asks me not to share quotes. So, consider this quote anonymous for the time being.
I’m understanding “colonialist” from what I presume to be the same understanding as the author; that bringing in outsider truth claims to a local community and presenting them as superior is colonialist. And yes, I recognize that such a statement in anachronistic, but isn’t that also what the quote in question is also doing?
Meaning, Paul was not from many of the communities to which he wrote. And, I’m working off the assumption that the above author’s use of “indigenous” means being from the immediate community.
I will also acknowledge that this quote is essentially a truth-claim in itself, and me questioning the accuracy of this claim does reveal a sort of bias within me, that this author is not capable of making such an overriding truth claim.
Derek Ryan Kubilus, Holy Hell: A Case Against Eternal Damnation (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdman’s Press, 2024), 133.
Kubilus, Holy Hell, 133.
Kubilus, Holy Hell, 134
Kubilus, Holy Hell, 129.
Kubilus, Holy Hell, 129.
I have an unread copy of the forthcoming book Humility: Rediscovering the Way of Love and Life in Christ by Michael W. Austin that I imagine will explore this possibility.